- Joined
- Nov 7, 2010
- Messages
- 7,676
- Reaction score
- 2,850
- Location
- Your Head
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/u...e-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?_r=0
The study shows that there is no bias against blacks in police shootings. It doesn't exist. If anything, white people are more likely to be shot. But it wasn't statistically significant enough to make that claim.
We are victims of a media narrative that is designed to drive up ratings and create political bias. Don't fall for it. The reality doesn't follow the narrative.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/u...e-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?_r=0
The study shows that there is no bias against blacks in police shootings. It doesn't exist. If anything, white people are more likely to be shot. But it wasn't statistically significant enough to make that claim.
We are victims of a media narrative that is designed to drive up ratings and create political bias. Don't fall for it. The reality doesn't follow the narrative.
If you'd read the article you referenced, you'd have noticed some problems. For instance, when it came to the killings,
The cities Mr. Fryer used to examine officer-involved shootings make up only about 4 percent of the nation’s population, and serve more black citizens than average.
The article continues:
Moreover, the results do not mean that the general public’s perception of racism in policing is misguided. Lethal uses of force are exceedingly rare. There were 1.6 million arrests in Houston in the years Mr. Fryer studied. Officers fired their weapons 507 times. What is far more common are nonlethal uses of force.
And in these uses of force, Mr. Fryer found racial differences, which is in accord with public perception and other studies.
In New York City, blacks stopped by the police were about 17 percent more likely to experience use of force, according to stop-and-frisk records kept between 2003 and 2013. (In the later year, a judge ruled that the tactic as employed then was unconstitutional.)
Hey - it gets better!
That gap, adjusted for suspect behavior and other factors, was surprisingly consistent across various levels of force. Black suspects were 18 percent more likely to be pushed up against a wall, 16 percent more likely to be handcuffed without being arrested and 18 percent more likely to be pushed to the ground.
Even when the police said that civilians were compliant, blacks experienced more force.
Then the last paragraph of your reference is a statement by the study's author:
“Who the hell wants to have a police officer put their hand on them or yell and scream at them? It’s an awful experience,” he said. “Every black man I know has had this experience. Every one of them. It is hard to believe that the world is your oyster if the police can rough you up without punishment. And when I talked to minority youth, almost every single one of them mentions lower-level uses of force as the reason why they believe the world is corrupt.”
You're so eager to believe that blacks are blowing things out of proportion when it comes to the killings. Now, how about addressing the REST of the study - the part that clearly shows that yeah, blacks - and especially black men - routinely face a level of aggression by police that we whites normally don't.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/u...e-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?_r=0
The study shows that there is no bias against blacks in police shootings. It doesn't exist. If anything, white people are more likely to be shot. But it wasn't statistically significant enough to make that claim.
We are victims of a media narrative that is designed to drive up ratings and create political bias. Don't fall for it. The reality doesn't follow the narrative.
Black men routinely resist arrest and assault law enforcement at levels that whites normally don't.
Ah. To you, it's all about the color of the skin. 'Cause they've got more melanin, they "routinely resist arrest and assault law enforcement", huh? See, they're a different kind of human being, huh?
Noted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/u...e-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html?_r=0
The study shows that there is no bias against blacks in police shootings. It doesn't exist. If anything, white people are more likely to be shot. But it wasn't statistically significant enough to make that claim.
We are victims of a media narrative that is designed to drive up ratings and create political bias. Don't fall for it. The reality doesn't follow the narrative.
Gee, never saw that one coming.
Black men routinely resist arrest and assault law enforcement at levels that whites normally don't.
Accounting for baseline demographics such as age and gender, encounter characteristics such as
whether individuals supplied identification or whether the interaction occurred in a high- or lowcrime
area, or civilian behaviors does little to alter the race coefficient
For instance,if police officers are pure statistical discriminators then as a civilian’s signal to police regardingtheir likelihood of compliance becomes increasingly deterministic, racial differences will disappear.To test this, we investigate racial differences in use of force on a set of police-civilian interactions in which the police report the civilian was compliant on every measured dimension, was not arrested,and neither weapons nor contraband was found. In contrast to the model’s predictions,racial differences on this set of interactions is large and statistically significant
They took the civilians behavior into account and there still was a racial disparity
Hey! Don'tcha know that the racism by whites doesn't exist? That the only real racism is on the part of those who point it out? It's just like the "rape problem" - it was never a problem when it wasn't reported...and only became a problem once women started reporting it!
Not going to waste my time with your leftist drivel.Then address what I pointed out in #2 - the REST of what the same study said.
They took the civilians behavior into account and there still was a racial disparity
http://www.nber.org/papers/w22399.pdf
Not going to waste my time with your leftist drivel.
'Course not. You were happy to see the part that you wanted to believe, and were happy to publicly agree with it...but when the REST of the same study was pointed out - and showed information that you didn't want to hear, well, all of a sudden "Not going to waste my time"!
That's what I've found about conservatives - they love to hear what they want to hear, but are flatly unwilling to discuss facts that draw their beliefs into question. You just provided a great example of precisely that.
I look forward to watching all the right wingers celebrate a study that shows the police are more likely to use force against black people
If you'd read the article you referenced, you'd have noticed some problems. For instance, when it came to the killings,
The cities Mr. Fryer used to examine officer-involved shootings make up only about 4 percent of the nation’s population, and serve more black citizens than average.
The article continues:
Moreover, the results do not mean that the general public’s perception of racism in policing is misguided. Lethal uses of force are exceedingly rare. There were 1.6 million arrests in Houston in the years Mr. Fryer studied. Officers fired their weapons 507 times. What is far more common are nonlethal uses of force.
And in these uses of force, Mr. Fryer found racial differences, which is in accord with public perception and other studies.
In New York City, blacks stopped by the police were about 17 percent more likely to experience use of force, according to stop-and-frisk records kept between 2003 and 2013. (In the later year, a judge ruled that the tactic as employed then was unconstitutional.)
Hey - it gets better!
That gap, adjusted for suspect behavior and other factors, was surprisingly consistent across various levels of force. Black suspects were 18 percent more likely to be pushed up against a wall, 16 percent more likely to be handcuffed without being arrested and 18 percent more likely to be pushed to the ground.
Even when the police said that civilians were compliant, blacks experienced more force.
Then the last paragraph of your reference is a statement by the study's author:
“Who the hell wants to have a police officer put their hand on them or yell and scream at them? It’s an awful experience,” he said. “Every black man I know has had this experience. Every one of them. It is hard to believe that the world is your oyster if the police can rough you up without punishment. And when I talked to minority youth, almost every single one of them mentions lower-level uses of force as the reason why they believe the world is corrupt.”
You're so eager to believe that blacks are blowing things out of proportion when it comes to the killings. Now, how about addressing the REST of the study - the part that clearly shows that yeah, blacks - and especially black men - routinely face a level of aggression by police that we whites normally don't.
I look forward to liberals ignoring the fact that black men are killed at the same or lower rate than white men while espousing the false narrative that there is a systemic race problem in law enforcement.
I don't see anyone ignoring that but I do see you ignoring the systemic racial disparity in the police's use of force
I think you have yet to actually prove the "systemic" part.
I think you still have to explain why you lied about so many things. You can start with explaining how you can say you're going to wait for a trial *after* you speculated about the victim having reached for a weapon.
A. I think you are getting your threads mixed up.
B. The officer has clearly stated that "I TOLD HIM NOT TO REACH FOR IT." very shortly after the shooting. Clearly indicating that the officer believed that he reached for his weapon as the basis of his reason to shoot. Im not sure how many more times I have to point that **** out to you. I guess you want to keep ignoring it.
I don't see anyone ignoring that but I do see you ignoring the systemic racial disparity in the police's use of force
The topic is killing, not use of force. I'm staying on topic.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?